september. host: after september that could come to the floor? guest: it is possible. it depends on all the other issues. the previous guest talking about nominations on the floor. it is possible after september. host: director of global business and trade with liver government, thank you for your time. that does it for today. now, live coverage of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, 2013. ton, d.c., july 9, i hereby appoint the honorable chris collins to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by

the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip each, to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i will be on the floor again talking about the failed policy in afghanistan. mr. speaker, most people in my district know i've signed over 11,000 letters, condolence letters of families who lost loved ones in afghanistan and iraq because of the unnecessary war we fought in iraq. in the last two weeks we were ome for the july fourth break.

they were two weekends. i signed 16 letters to families who lost loved ones in afghanistan. mr. speaker, it's almost like we in congress don't know we're still at war but yet there are young men and women dying in afghanistan and being wounded every day. the american people do not understand why we continue to fund this failed policy in afghanistan. each and every day the failures become clearer and clearer to the american people but not to congress. most recently special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction warned that the pentagon is moving ahead with on to spend $771 million aircraft, including 30 russian helicopters, for an afghan military team. this purchase comes despite the fact that only seven of 47 afghan air force pilots are qualified to fly helicopters.

as reported by cnn, an audit by him, explained that the reason why so few pilots are able to fly the aircraft, and i quote him, it's difficult to find literate recruits who don't have links to insurgents or criminals. mr. speaker, that should wake up the congress if nothing else. unfortunately, this is only one of many examples of american money being wasted in afghanistan. i've written multiple letters requesting a hearing to allow him to testify before the house armed services committee regarding this and other findings that he's made in afghanistan, the abuse of american funds but to my knowledge a hearing has not been scheduled. i'll continue to push the chairman of the armed services committee, which i serve on. mr. speaker, what is so sad truthfully is for the american taxpayer that their representatives in washington will continue to spend money in

afghanistan with very little accountability. the american people are tired of this war in afghanistan, they're tired of seeing young men and women coming back in flag-draped coffins. this administration is in the final stages of negotiating a bilateral security agreement with afghanistan. congress has had no debate, no debate on this strategic agreement. i realize that the president is not required to come before congress and for approval, but it is that we in congress should have the concern that we would bring up the issue itself and debate it and vote up or down whether we should stay in afghanistan for 10 more years. mr. speaker, before closing, i want to remind that in these 16 letters that i signed in the last two weeks, several of the letters were addressed to children. there will be two, three, four children to say i'm sorry that

your father or your brother or your sister or your mother had been killed in afghanistan. so, mr. speaker, in closing, i ask god to please bless the men and women in uniform, to bless the families of our men and women in uniform in his loving arms who have given a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. i ask god to please bless the house and senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of god. i ask god to have the president do what's right in the eyes of the american people. i ask god, please, god, please, god, please continue to bless america and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, entire neighborhoods in my city of chicago are being torn apart by violence. last week from wednesday evening through sunday evening more than 70 people were shot

in chicago. 11 of them died. st year over 500 people were murdered in my city. of these murders, 80% were gang related. and nearly 90% were at the hands of a gun. the numbers speak for themselves. the city of chicago is facing an epidemic of violence and the reason behind it are clear. there are many ideas to solve this problem. one, rounding out 18,000 members of the gangster disciples is simply not legally or financially feasible. what is feasible and significant way to stop gun violence in my city is to stop the flow of illegal guns into chicago. one reason the violence is at record levels is because gang members have such easy access to illegal guns. it's time for the federal government to step in and do something about it. despite the city's tough gun laws, chicago cops are

recovering illegal guns at nine times the rate of their counterparts in new york city. that's nearly three times the number of weapons in a city 1/3 the size. these outrageous numbers call for nothing short of a federal response. we need a renewed effort at the federal level to prosecute gun traffickers who put illegal weapons in the hands of gang members. we need to give our law enforcement the tools they need to put these guys away. last year chicago ranked last among federal jurisdictions in federal gun prosecutions. this is simply unacceptable. gun traffickers should know if you traffic illegal weapons in the city of chicago you'll be spending a long time in a federal penitentiary. we cannot let these criminals be charged with mere paperwork violations. i welcome the nomination of as ry fartherin -- fardin

special prosecutor and to prosecute more of these cases. we need to give law enforcement the tools and funding they need to do so. that means finally passing a federal lawmaking gun trafficking illegal with stiffer penalties for those who violate the law. that means increasing funding for federal cops grants to put more police on our streets. instead of ignoring municipalities across the country that have been forced to cut their safety budgets in these difficult times and that means finally giving law enforcement the proper tools to go after corrupt gun dealers. 1% of gun dealers are responsible for half the guns using crimes in this country. yet current law foolishly limits things like inventory inspection. , law-abiding dealers report corrupt . would combat

gun dealers. that's why i reintroduced the trace act which would require dealers to provide inventory checks and report lost and stolen guns for the a.t.f. mr. speaker, people are being gunned down in my city every day. while we spend money on nuclear weapons, tanks overseas, we're ignoring the war here at home. it's time for the federal government to step up to the challenge by stopping gun violence where it starts. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, for five minutes. mr. turner: mr. speaker, yesterday over 14,000 civilian department of defense employees at wright peterson air force base in my community were furloughed as a result of sequestration. for 11 days over the next few months these hardworking members of my community will see their pay cut by 20%. i voted against this mess.

i knew the effects of sequestration on our national security and our constituents would be significant and devastating. these vital members of our national security structure have essentially been told they're expendable. morale at wright peterson air force base and d.o.d. facilities are suffering because of this. i've spoken to not just these civilian employees but to car dealers, restaurant owners, small businesses all who the pain and o feel the frustration. it doesn't have to be this way. the house has passed an act to revert sequestration. the senate has failed to pass a single bill to avert sequestration. the president, who promised the american people that this would not happen, has done nothing. meanwhile, families and businesses not only in ohio but across the country are suffering. it's time for the president to

keep his promise that he made during his re-election campaign d to work to set aside sequestration. mr. speaker, i voted against sequestration. the house has passed legislation to halt it and it's time that the senate and the president come to the table and work to find a way to avert these furloughs and their devastating impacts on the lives and businesses of hardworking americans and its impact upon our national security. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. i would ask my colleagues a very simple question. can this congress approve legislation that is supported by over 85% of the american public that is truly bipartisan legislation with distinguished republican co-sponsors and will not cost anything? in fact, could even save billions of dollars. can we give the american public

something they not only want but they need and to which they're entitled? i would hope so. i would hope that congress could act on the personalize your health care act, h.r. 1173, which i've introduced along with dr. roe, mr. reed, mr. hanna, doctors mcdermott and bera. survey research in the national journal shows overwhelming public support for this type of protection for families. 96% of the americans surveyed said it was important that these health and end of issuesopor ur health care system. 97% agree that it's important that patients and their families be educated about care and end of life option treatments available along with curative treatment. and 86% agree that these

discussions about pal tif care and end of life treatment should be fully covered by health insurance. americans agree that people need to know what faces them in difficult situations approaching end of life or when people are temporarily unable to make medical decisions for themselves. but medicare, which will pay tens of thousands of dollars for a full hip replacement for a 93-year-old woman with terminal cancer will not authorize a couple hundred dollars for her and her family to have medical consultation about her personal choices and circumstances for the future. our legislation will change that. there have been fascinating studies about how doctors die differently from the rest of us because they know what works and what doesn't. doctors, it turns out, tend to consume health care much differently and often less in

their final year of life. it's not they don't understand, it's not they don't have access to health care, they can't afford it. they just know their situation better than the rest of us. they know what works, and they know what they want and usually that means comfort and quality of life and more control. our legislation will be a maul but important step to make sure - our legislation will be an important step to make sure they know their choices, their prospects, being able to identify what they want and make sure that their wishes are known and respected. now, i don't think there's any of us on the floor of the house who has not felt some frustration. can't we get something done? well, here's an opportunity that doesn't depend upon what your view of obamacare is, whether it's implemented, clade or repealed doesn't matter -- delayed or repealed doesn't matter. this is legislation that doesn't need to cost anything. it will actually end up saving

money, but money is not the point. can we act together to do something for the public, show we're not paralyzed, that we can work together and we can make progress in a difficult environment? i would urge my colleagues to join the bipartisan and growing list of members who've co-sponsored the personalize your care act, h.r. 1173. someday congress will deal with the vast looming crisis we face. in the meantime, helping patients understand their choices, make their wishes known and respected is an important step to start. thank you very much. . thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. barletta, for five minutes. mr. barletta: i rise today in the wake of the passage of the senate amnesty bill to shed light on two important elements

of illegal immigration that the senate grossly overlooked. as we know the senate bill pa pairs border security with amnesty. this makes no sense. you would never replace your carpet at home if you still had a hole in the roof. i'm hopeful that the house will put border security first, but i still have concerns. that's why today i'm introducing two pieces of legislation, one will address the problem of visa overstays. and the other will ask for a full accounting of what went wrong with the 1986 amnesty deal that led to our current illegal immigration problem. the first bill, the visa overstay enforcement act of 2013, will, for the first time, make staying in the country after your visa has expired a felony criminal offense instead of just a civil offense.

upon a first offense the visa overstay would bring a $10,000 fine and one year in jail. the illegal immigrant may not be legally admitted in the united states for five years from the conviction, and may not apply for a visa for 10 years after the conviction. a second offense would be subject to a fine of $15,000 and up to five years in jail. the illegal immigrant would be banned from endering the united states for life. most -- entering the united states for life. most of the talk on this issue has been focused on the southern border, but that won't solve our illegal immigration problem alone. if we fix our broken visa system, we can take care of nearly half of our illegal immigration concerns. the second part of this bill requires the secretary of homeland security to submit a plan to congress detailing a biometric exit program involving the taking of fingerprints of those leaving the country at all

land, sea, and airports. as i have often said, since 40% of illegal immigrants here today are here on an expired visa, it is obvious that if your state is home to an international airport, then you effectively live in a border state. and we should learn from history. in 1986 we were told that if we just granted amnesty to 1.5 million illegal immigrants, the problem would go away. that didn't happen. instead, three million people came here to take advantage of amnesty. we need to know what effect the 986 amnesty program had on the american worker and whether the effects still linger today. will wages -- were wages depressed, were jobs taken away from legal workers because so many received amnesty? we should learn our lesson. my second piece of legislation

is the 1986 amnesty transparency act. it requires a comprehensive report on the failures of the immigration reform and control act of 1986, which are many. speaking of 1986, let's remember that in that year one of the bombers in the 1993 world trade center attack was granted amnesty. he had originally arrived on an agricultural visa. he was really a taxi driver. and all he ever planted was a bomb. the real losers in this debate are the legal immigrants who have followed the rules and here is a clear example. under the obamacare employer mandate, any company with 50 or more employees must provide health insurance to their employees or pay a fine of $3,000 per employee. but illegal immigrants granted

amnesty upped the bill are exempt from obamacare. so i ask you what is the incentive to hire a legal american worker who would come with a health care price tag over an illegal worker who would not? none. we have immigration laws for two reasons, to protect our national security and to protect american jobs. the senate bill violates both of those principles. so tell me, why would we do this? i ask the house to consider my commonsense bills and put border security first. let's put the safety of the american citizens first. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, last week while the american people were preparing

to celebrate the 237th birthday of the nation, the obama administration announced via blog post it would provide an additional year before the employer reporting requirements and the employer share responsibility requirements of obamacare take effect. there are few issues as personal significant in the lives of individuals as families as health and well-being. which is why the irony of reminding americans that government now controls their health care during the week we celebrate our country's independence did not go unnoticed. despite efforts to quietly buy time and obfuscate responsibility for this health care law, most americans rightfully view this delay as an admission of failure. mr. speaker, the businesses that provide the jobs and the source of health care coverage for most americans were not surprised by this announcement. most are well aware that this law was thoughtlessly rammed through congress in the middle

of the night with a litany of technical flaws and other blatant failures. unfortunately, employers have been struggling with high health care costs since before the law passed given the combined pressure of new taxes and regulations, businesses are law'sg worse now that the provisions began to take effect. these new government mandates, incentivize businesses to reduce their work force to under 50 full-time equivalency employees. the incentive under obamacare is to reduce individual hours to avoid the mandates. employees now face the redefinition of full-time down to just 35 hours per week. this law denies opportunities for growth that could and should be available and promoted. this is fundamentally counter to what a vibrant and robust american economy demands. fewer jobs and reduced hours are

not good for individuals, families, businesses, or for our economy. nonetheless, employees and employers alike are experiencing the consequences of obama sizing both businesses and jobs. by the time the law is fully implemented in 2023, the congressional budget office estimates that the president's health care law will still leave 30 million americans uninsured. at the same time, the law is massively driving up the cost of care for both employers and employees. in fact, 17 of the nation's largest insurance companies indicate that health insurance premiums will grow an average of 100% under this law. the evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive, mr. speaker, obamacare is not overwhelm unaffordable but it also fails to address access to care in any meaningful way. in the process, we are damaging everything that is good and effective about the current system. to boot, we are undermining growth and strong economic

recovery. effectively we have thrown the baby out with the bath water. the fact that the white house used a blog posted -- post to announce the employer mandate change reveals just how desperate the administration is to cover up the flaws of this fatally flawed bill. unfortunately, this is not something the white house was willing to admit until after the midterm election. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce, for five minutes. rise ce: mr. speaker, i in recognition of a document of reat significance, the cyrus cylinder, that will be touring the united states for the duration of this year and will be on display in museums across this country. on october 2, the cyrus cylinder will be displayed to the public at the getty museum in malibu in

california. as what historians call the irst bill of human rights, the cyrus cylinder out of persia remains important particularly as the inhair tors, the people of iran, continue to suffer under oppressive islamic republic in iran. ews, babylonians, greeks, left laudatory accounts of cyrus' actions. the cyrus cylinder is widely considered to be not only the first human rights document but a document to protect other cultures. in the torah it is written that king cyrus issued a decree concerning the house of god in jerusalem, let the house be rebuilt. the cost will be paid from the house of the king. in what now can be considered a defining moment in history,

cyrus permitted the jews to take their ceremonial vessels, and important cultural and religious objects back with them to jerusalem and rebuild their temple. cyrus the great holds a great position in civilization. his freedom for all people, respect for culture and religious diversity, the recognition of the fact that it is better to be loved than feared, are remarkable attributes for any ruler. in the li who left iran wake of the iranian revolution shares with us, for someone who lived 2,600 years ago, such beliefs are truly exceptional. he makes a second point about the document's influential on persian and greek culture and the european enlightenment. his values and ideas for governance have long inspired political thinkers and leaders

of men, including the founding wovers of this country who these same ideals into the very constitution of the united states. thomas jefferson owned two that told the ia story of quing cyrus. cyrus the great, as the persians call him. such as jefferson's admiration for this work that jefferson's -- jefferson wrote to his own grandson, i would advise you, go first through the cyropedia then read heredotos. unfortunately, contrary to the traditions of the cyrus cylinder, the iranian government continues to engage in widespread human rights abuses. while the cyrus cylinder highlighted peace and acceptance as its ideals, the current regime in iran has steadily

increased its discriminatory practices and repression of the country's ethnic and religious minority populations from azerbaijanis to kurds and arabs. to the baha'is and christians. iranian authorities routinely denied citizens the most basic human rights through harassment, detention, intimidation, and violence. for those minorities who served in the prison system in iran, ofy can tell you the stories how horrible that violence can be. tion that is often violate iran's own international obligations routinely occur there in that country, and i hope that cyrus' cylinder tour across the united states brings attention to the oppressiveness of the iranian regime and serves a symbol, a symbol that

promotes human rights around the world, a symbol to remind people of what that culture once stood for under cyrus the great. so in 2013 on the occasion of the first ever visit of the cyrus cylinder from the british museum to the united states and to the getty museum in malibu, from october 2 to december 2, we call attention to this important historical document for the example it set over two millennia ago. thank you, mr. speaker. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. pelosi. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this past weekend as the nation celebrated the fourth of july, the birth of our country, a tragedy struck. as all the world knows, a plane crash landed at san francisco airport, something very

uncommon, but something that shares a common interest. our thoughts and prayers today rest with the passengers and the ew who were onboard asiana flight 214. the families of the victims of the horrific tragedy, the men and women rescuing -- recovering in hospitals across the bay area. all of san fransisco shares in their shocking grief. we will help those affected by this. the sudden crash shook the grounds of san francisco international airport, testing the training, strength and courage of those who will be he first on the scene. as a representative of san francisco in the congress, a privilege of share with

congresswoman jackie speier, whose airport is in congresswoman speier's district, we will join together losses ve and mourn the tomorrow when some more of our members are here back from the izona tragedy, but for now i wanted not another day to go by before commending the crew. so heroically, the crew was so magnificent and a reminder to us that the first responsibility of the crew is safety, that they are trained for it and they performed magnificently. and the flight attendant, one of the -- the lead flight attendant was the last person to leave the plane. not until everyone else was off. first responders responded with bravery, with valor, without

regard of their own safety, with their eyes set only on the safety of others. their stories are so remarkable , their stories are so remarkable about what they saw on the plane and how people responded and it was the coolness and the cooperation not only of the crew but many of the passengers that enabled so many people to be saved. seeing the site of the plane and the crash, it was almost miraculous to think so many eople would survive the crash. with only minutes to react and within minutes the flight crew and the san francisco and san mateo police officers and fire departments were climbing up the rescue chutes, running through smoke-filled aisles and leading passengers out to safety. within minutes, tori malloy and

his team set up a triage area that would evacuate the most severely injured. within minutes the air traffic controllers and airport staff were diverting traffic and travelers to secure the area. within minutes the hospitals prepared, made ready and visited to provide the injured with the necessary care and support. as we speak the injured are recovering at san francisco general hospital, the source of pride to us in san francisco. it is a major trauma center. if you have to go to a trauma center, san francisco general s the gold standard. ucfs, st. francis memorial hospital, st. francis medical center of california, pacific medical center. the swift and fearless response of each of the men and women who responded, each of those

are heros saved the lives of many on the asiana flight. their actions are hallmark of their professions and the testament to the testimony to the strength and selflessness that defines the san francisco bay area. he story of asiana flight is not over. when the story goes away, the national transportation safety board will continue to investigate what happened and we will all work to ensure it never happens again. i want to particularly commend e board and chairwoman deborah hersman. we will continue to work with the national transportation safety board, san francisco international airport to make sure our planes are secure, passengers are safe, our u.s. aviation remains the safest way

to travel. it's been decades since we had any incident at the san francisco airport. i can't remember any. we will honor the act of first responders, the flight crew, the flight crew, the flight crew, weren't they magnificent, air traffic controllers, hospital staff? remember those lost in the tragedy and do what we can to always ensure the safety and security of all travelers in america. again, our prayers are with those who suffered through that agedy and trauma that many experienced that is beyond physical but hopefully comforted by the prayers and interest of others. with that i yield back the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

>> we go live to the rayburn house. on iraqthe report reconstruction and stabilization efforts in iraq and reconstruction efforts in afghanistan. this is the house foreign affairs subcommittee on the middle east. informationerent management system, unacceptable. contacting -- congress has responded to the contract and challenges that departments have but have the departments responded in an integrated and effective fashion? the answer still must be no. also unacceptable because if you want to talk about waste, a lot of waste occurred in poor

contract in vehicle choice, poor quality assurance, or contract management, ineffective oversight on the ground and the implementation of contract. the most important lesson that these issues can be resolved by establishing an entity that would ensure civil military integration of planning, execution, and oversight for future stabilization reconstruction operations. by mr. introduced stockman and mr. welch would do that. it provides a structure and addresses a contrasting problem addresses the personal problem and put somebody in charge. no one is in charge and then someone should be in charge. accountability is key to success. that is the purpose of this hearing, oversight, to impose accountability and looking forward as the members have reticulated which we must do as we learn from iraq, we have to

implement reforms that will affect kuwait -- a effectuate future stabilization reconstruction operations. the u.s. office for contingency operations would ensure such success. thank you, madam chairman and members of the committee. i look forward to your questions. >> excellent, thank you very much. ambassador, we would love to hear from you as well. just push that green button. >> madam chairman and members -- >> a little bit closer. >> thank you for inviting me to appear today and it is a pleasure to appear beside stuart bowen. i am here to offer support for his suggestion to create the u.s. office of contingency operations. this discussion comes at an inopportune but necessary moment. the country's since 2001, our military has been stretched in

afghanistan to the breaking point and the resources for repair and rejuvenation had been there. with our planned withdrawal from afghanistan next year, the u.s. seems to be entering a new era of u.s. security challenges chased by the double cost in afghanistan. the american public's preference is to avoid this in the future. this clear preference to avoid large scale interventions has reinforced by the nation's budgetary woes. this has put serious pressure on the federal budget and the pentagon. there's not much support at this time for the u.s. to invest its reduced budget resources to ensure that we conduct stability operations in an efficient way. this is a serious mistake because whether or not the country is entering a new post- afghanistan. policy, the international scene is characterized by state dissolution and instability. al qaeda called up in the taliban-led a failed state of afghanistan launched the

september 11 attacks. today, this extremist group is recruiting terrorists in annapolis. -- in minneapolis. criminal groups are making common cause around the world to the detriment of law- abiding states and citizens. the fund for international -- for peace and national farm policy issued a 2013 failed state index last month. it listed 20 countries with somalia and the democratic republic of," leading the way as in critical condition and 20 more in serious danger. this problem of uncovered spaces will be with us work for a generation or more in there will be contingencies when american interests and the american public demand that we act. for example, haiti has earned its ranking as eighth most unstable country in the world.

the interventions haven't driven by her desire to alleviate human misery and prevent a flood of haitian refugees washing up on our shores. these are objections that the american public can understand and support but i was in the state department during our last intervention in haiti following the january earthquake. i recall vividly senior officials saying we will do this intervention -- intervention right so there will be no need for future interventions. as the chairwoman pointed out, we did not do it right. our engagement achieve little. there will be occasions in the future we have to engage haiti so it is good if we are prepared. there's one more reason to developed stabilization and reconstruction operations. the american public is fed up with intervention abroad, many in congress are not. we saw this in the run-up to the intervention in libya. president obama was initially reluctant to engage but under pressure from our allies and the

u.k. and france and from congress, we decided to go in. the president put clear limits on our role. we only used airport power and put no soldiers on the ground but this intervention was in support of a principle, the responsibility to protect helpless citizens from their own leadership which would lead to our intervening again and again around the world. right now, we are witnessing pressure to get involved in syria. this pressure is despite our failure of intervention in toya, our failure that led the destruction of democracy in mali and the humanitarian tragedy there. growing for us to engage in syria despite the fact that the most effective members of the opposition are extremists. if we go into syria, we better be prepared. we're not prepared at this

moment to properly run stabilization and reconstruction operations, the u.s. needs to complement our world-class military. one way to explain our less than successful stability operations in iraq and afghanistan is to point out the obvious. these operations were carried out by professionals on the military side but by amateurs on the civilian side. this is not to denigrate our state department. i was a career foreign service officer for 31 years and i can't attest to you that our foreign service officers are courageous and intelligence and cable and the same is true with our usaid colleagues. they don't hire or train people for large stability operations. this was evident in a rock and afghanistan agreed we deployed hundreds and thousands of u.s. aid and state department officers but we eventually staffed with tens of thousands of contractors. these are people who served one

tour and that left. their experience vanished with them. contrast that with the military personnel who served three or more tours in iraq and afghanistan. the problem on the civilian side has been noted for some time and let president clinton to issue directives 56 president bush to issue a national security directive 44. the purpose of the second directive was to create a rapid reaction of civilian response that could be used for conflict prevention and response. it was under the control of my old office of the state department. scrs was beginning to build a civilian response corp., the obama administration came in. under the quadrennial the policy review undersecretary clinton, the department took the step of making my old office a girl and renaming it the conflict instability operations bureau.

unfortunately for budgetary and other reasons, they decided to take apart the civilian response corporate this was once numbered over 1000 and has been reduced to a handful. in other words, if we had gone into a major stability operation today, we would have to staff the contingency operation with contractors. we are no further prepared to staff with professionals in the u.s. government than we were 10 years ago. that is the problem. experience has shown that we need a core of dedicated civilian professionals in order to conduct the stabilization operations well. this is where usoco comes in. since the end of the war in afghanistan and as we draw down, the military is putting together smaller numbers for stability operations but that had the ability to ramp up. we do not have something equivalent on the civilian side. we have not had that since u.s. a id was taken apart after the vietnam war. usoco is the first jet to re-

establishing this capacity. the initial cost of this proposal is insignificant, $25 million to put together a staff of one of 25 professionals that could organize the civilian side. it would provide the first stability operation of professionals wedded to respond to emergencies abroad. this would put our civilian side enacted in the same situation as our military which is ramp down the numbers but was able to ramp up in emergency brake has retained the know how to conduct civilian operations -- civil operations. we have pre of the world's greatest military but without a professional civilian counterpart, the military will not conduct stability -- stabilization operations successfully. this would help us avoid tomorrow. i apologize for going over my time. >> thank you, mr. tet -- mr. ambassador. we will begin the questioning. i will recognize myself for five minutes. mr. bowen, we have spent nearly

$100 billion in afghanistan already but we continue to make some of the same mistakes we have done in iraq. one of the lessons learned from your testimony that you pointed out is that we should begin rebuilding only after establishing sufficient security. have seenfact that we press reports this morning that the president is considering leaving no troops in afghanistan after our withdrawal in 2014, how will this security vacuum impact our reconstruction efforts in afghanistan based on the lessons learned in iraq? >> i thank my interview with secretary pannetta on this point sheds some light on the decision making with regard to the withdrawal from iraq. secretary panetta said to me that the ability to negotiate a basis for continuing u.s. military presence in the post-

2011 strategic framework agreement, let the united states without import leverage in iraq. the u.s. will push for greater change within the government of iraq. that is a lesson, i would say, from the iraq experience and from secretary panetta's perspective. it is one that should be listened to carefully. as we look forward to afghanistan, that lesson to be kept in mind because the truth is, the last quarter in iraq has been the most devastating quarter since the summer of 2010 -- 2008. a lot of causes for that like what is going on in syria but the rule of law certainly is not under control in iraq at this moment. >> speaking of syria, due to the ongoing bloody conflict, the infrastructure in syria will continue to increase and the u.s. might be asked to assist in

the construction -- reconstruction of syria in the near future. looking beyond afghanistan, what would you suggest, year one of you, should are planned before a syria inadd construction and how much cost would be involved? can you envision what those would be and what mistakes might be repeated their decks >> at a minimum, we should be actively planning for participating in a multilateral stabilization and reconstruction operation in a post-assad syria. we should have been planning for a while and un, under the former syrian minister is doing that and he has publicly expressed some frustration at the lack of multilateral engagements. it is impossible to project the cost but we do know the devastation in syria is massive. the stabilization and rebuilding

of the country will take time. what should be clearly on the table and would be if there was a usoco existence is identifying the contractors, the personnel, the it systems, the oversight and how money would be managed, the controls. fraud,re that we avert waste, and abuse of the kind of stuck in iraq and afghanistan. >> mr. ambassador. >> i agree with stewart agreed we should be planning now and have been planning long ago for possible engagement in syria after the assad regime falls. whether we do that depends on many things. whether the government after assad friendly to us. we should be planning for that contingency now. i believe there has been some planning done by the office of stabilization and

operations at the state department for this but i don't know how comprehensive it has been. it needs to be done in conjunction with what is being done by you and. >> if i could interrupt -- you talk about the bureau of conflict and stabilization operation which was established in november of 2011. this pure was preceded by the organization that you lead, the office of court mission for reconstruction and stabilization. even though the bureau concentrates more on small crises, do you believe we should increase the capacity of the existing pierre within the state department or establish a new center which you propose called the u.s. office for contingency operations? wouldn't there be more redundancy and duplicative efforts between those two entities? >> i think there is the possibility for duplication if usoco established. core of a successful

stabilization operation on the civilian side consists of planning, second late an integrated core of government professionals and what you have in cso now is an able planning capacity and a small competent staff. largerre is no interagency core of professionals to do this work properly the conscious decision was made to reduce that court. conceivably, it could be done in that office or be done with stuart's proposal for usoc . there does not seem to be an interest in the state department to do that and even when i was in charge of the scrs of us, there did not seem to be retinas on the rest of the building to use it. it was something of a foreign entity in the state department. >> thank you very much for good answers and mr. deutsch is

recognized. >> thank you, madame chairwoman. you say and you spoke today about facilitating greater host country but-in. i would like you to speak to what that did not happen in iraq and then you also recommended insuring security before rebuilding. is important, i wonder the extent to which we can actually do that and whether there is concerned that it actually prolongs the conflict and that slows the reconstruction infrastructure that meets to happen. if you could speak to both of

those and ambassador, as it relates to syria -- if that is the sort of thing that usoco would do and that's the view that would be taken here, how -- when is it ever relevant -- when is the security situation and who deems the security situation address well enough to be able to come into these other things? >> thank you. on the consultation point -- part of it was a shift from liberates and leave which was the pre-war plan to occupy and rebuild which became the policy just over 10 years ago now. it was a significant shift from spending $2 billion-$20 billion in the blink of an eye and then $60 billion over 10 years. we were planning on leaving by the end of september of 2003. thus, there was no commitment to consultation with the plan to

short stay. when we shifted to a significant infrastructure based rebuilding the plan evolved within and among the u.s. contractors that were identified and was developed by the coalition provisional authority. it did not engage with the iraqis and up. that is their first-person testimony to me about what happened. more importantly, it was something that was not thought of before hand, the need to consult and a commitment and its efforts to host country interest, capacity in particular. what can they do? >> what can they sustain? the key is ensuring sufficient security, not absolute security. it is a proportion of metric. the less secure the environment, the smaller the project for the more security in barbur, the more substantial the project you can pursue. you have the

assessments being done about security and about engagement. in the absence of usoco, those assessments were being done by our ambassador and those assessments were being done by the generals on the ground. where are they on this proposal? do they feel that would have benefited? to any of the generals or ambassadors who served in iraq feel that they would have benefited by having best? >> yes, sir. ambassador crocker says this would have enabled him to operate more effectively and he supports the idea of creating usoco. the u.s. is operating overseas -- i guess we can theden this to syria -- ambassador in iraq and when the u.s. operates elsewhere, it is the ambassador who heads the civilian efforts in the country.

the commanding general then heads the defense operations. i understand what ambassador crocker said. where would usoco fit into the chain of command? is it on par with state and dot? >> the mission would be discreet and well-defined and clarity will provide certainty to both the agencies and contractors. it would be somewhat wouldfema where the president would declare when the operation begins. the jurisdiction is effectuated and its mission is to oversee the relief and reconstruction activity in the affected country. upon completion of that mission as identified by the president, he would declare it over. the reporting chain would be like reporting to the secretary of defense and secretary of state and national security adviser. >> when would we ever hit that point in syria?

in afghanistan, at what point with that designation have been made? >> in syria, we would hit it once we decided the situation was appropriate for us to go in. that is when you have the government in damascus or merging government in damascus which we know we can work with and with conditions on the ground are sufficient to permit us to go in. to make that call, you would need to have very experienced professionals on the ground, certainly on the border with syria and hopefully within syria as well to offer the expert political advice that our leaders need to make that decision that is why you need to have a core professionals devoted precisely to this type this core of national's, we are not able to make the decision about when there is a government we can work with?

and gender be much more that goes into the discussion about when to get involved or do we always wait until there is a government we can work with? >> we should be involved as soon as there is a crisis brewing and we should put our best professionals on the ground to get a sense of what is happening. there's been some skepticism about whether or not we need these professionals to make decisions. my experience states that these are very this is very helpful. analysis before our leaders decided to go into this very serious way. mentioned by the committee before proved to be false. >> thank you mr. deutsch. vets will iraq testify treated. >> thank you, i think the big

thing we want to know is not should be be involved in other parts of the world, but of course how do we do it better. is of the concerns i have during this time in egypt where we have turmoil is that we will run to the exits to give aid and walk away. engagedwe should stay with aid as they go through this time of instability. i think is also important to and againthat in iraq i think there were mistakes made in postwar. i think we should gone in with far more troops and had a plan when saddam's statue fell. and we should've gotten on tv and said if you work for the iraqi government you should come to work tomorrow because you will have a job. that would have alone would've prevented years of fighting erie it. something i want to explore is what is the difference between

germany and japan post world war ii and what we saw in iraq. of aidd of development program can happen in a highly unstable security environment. lesson from core iraq and afghanistan that you must have sufficient security before you have reconstruction activity development and aid. billions of dollars and too many lives. we issued a report last summer that 719 lives were lost while those individuals were engaged in reconstruction related activity. better planning, better capacity, better integration amongst the agencies would avert the kind of abuse we've seen in iraq and better execution. would implement effective

oversight so the lost and blood in we've seen in iraq and afghanistan would be averted in afghanistan and whatever reconstruction we engage in. >> think user. -- thank you sir. accepted the legitimacy of our presence in germany and japan, but in iraq that was always a question. we believe when the saddam statue fell daily have the legitimacy at that that point and was it a matter of we do not enforce laws? we briskly -- was that the problem? with ourthe complexity relationship with the arab world even as saddam's statue came down, i believe we had a chance that we could have established legitimacy.

if we get smart, we would establish law and order which we had the capacity to do. as you said, we would welcome those who were in the government to continue working. there are many fundamental mistakes that we made. mistakes because we were not sufficiently sensitive to the culture or the location. even had we done everything the racku rock was -- was much more difficult than germany or japan. president roosevelt made the critical decision not to remove the emperor of japan and the emperor of japan said to the japanese people cooperate with the americans. we have no such motion ship in iraq. >> you're suggesting the should've left saddam hussein as president? >> no, we took out tojo in japan. >> i understand what you're saying. >> i thank you for that question and as we look forward to a very

important questions and we are very naïve if we think we will not have to be in the situation in the next 50-hundred years. the good forward to where we are at -- looking forward to where we are at in a rack in afghanistan. the year to pull out of afghanistan was pulled out of a hat when the president wanted to put a date for withdrawal. i will not necessarily argue or disagree, but one of my concerns is what you look at afghanistan today, 60% of the people are under the age of 20 or some amazingly young demographic. society, it'lll are waking up in the military controls the entire country that is standing against certain taliban. this is a war that has to continue but we are on a -- on the eve for the victory of the people of afghanistan. when we look back on the united

states when our grandkids or reading history books, it will look at this finite amount of time when there was instability in the middle east and everywhere and what did america do with its position of power and it will lead to a world of chaos, a world worth russian or chinese leadership or where america continues to be the shining city on the hill. thank you for your testimony. >> mr. connolly of virginia is recognized. fingeringciate his some of the early mistakes that were catastrophic. i would argue part of the problem was our own command infused toocause we much power for unilateral power -- decisions. to try to keep the country together posted vision. i enjoyed talking to you about

that and i commend the book by thomas ricks which documents this in agonizing in painful detail. mr. bowen, you and i traveled to iraq together. we will be concise, two things that came up during that was a -- was that the idea that the military was going to become an aid distribution entity. some one thing to have things to bolster the role of rebuilding communities not being seen as occupiers and invaders, but this program was -- had very little scrutiny and i wonder as part of your report would you talk about that. the second thing is i remember when we were traveling around powerd, the story about

plants or water purification plant that we built. the problem was we gave no thought to the capacity of piping and baghdad so we have this brand-new thing that we could point you and we cut a ribbon and we turn on the switch. tens of thousands of baghdad water pipes burst. because they were not retrofitted to handle this new capacity. saying witht i was 50% of absolute raised. waste.of absolute maybe because of haste or we do not have the right people on the project or have the coordination you're talking about. we talk about that aspect to it not just waste. our office as demonstrated in extended far beyond the concept as quick hit

urgent humanitarian need projects. that is a good idea and that is a weapon in the arsenal of the local commander to address hearts and mind issues and the local village level. what happened instead was we had a project like the baghdad enterprises own itch ballooned up to 38 million including the painting of a mural for $1 million. certainly --roject that is great work if you can get it. i would deem it waste. did notortant, it advance our national security interest locally and instead handed them and ultimately the congress responded by capping those projects at $1 million unless the secretary of defense approved the men that never happened. .atch be done at the pentagon

-- that should be done at the pentagon and carefully defined how it should be implementing and ensure training was done. on the water system, it was the largest product we did -- project we did in iraq. as we documented in our valuation of it, it was only operating at 20% after turnover. it is an example of what happens when you do not carefully consult and effectively oversee and ensure proper execution at the local level. it was a project beyond their means on the and as you pointed out, there is so much waste at the sustainment point. document.possible to by contrast, the parallel water treatment project, the fourth- largest project we did in iraq,

was a success. it is providing fresh water to the people of the capital city of christian and because -- curtis didn't because sustainment is a huge issue in any future operation. you, dr. ho. >> we were talking about broad waste and abuse and we need to have transparency and oversight at all that and i hear that, but we never find a person that is held accountable at the top. >> with the money that we look at spending in iraq, and close to $100 billion in afghanistan without the oversight, it just seems -- that is one of the reasons i'm here is that american people are tired of that.

the reason it worked in japan and germany is we need the stink out of them and they surrendered. nobody surrendered here. so of course if we go to a non- stable government and try to rebuild, it is almost insanity or ludicrous that we do that without that clear and defined goal. now we looking at syria to do it again. i want to ask specifically, what do you see as the role of the american government in the middle east? is there a different way that we can approach the middle east to bring stability to that area instead of going in there and bombing and people die and then we have to look at rebuilding? the other question is if you could take us through a scenario of how money is given to this agency and how it is tracked so that we do not get into this again? unfortunately, i think we will be involved somewhere in the

future and i would rather not see that. i would hate to see our young women and men overseas. they need to stay here and build america strong. i look forward to hearing you. question. a big you ask and can provide stability in the middle east. i think it is safe to say that is beyond our means to provide stability in each and every country in the middle east. we will bankrupt ourselves if we try. environment and provide prudent relationships and that is part of oracle. -- part of our goal. we can also make a significant difference, but we have to be careful before we go in and have to have excellent intelligence. we have to have goals that are sufficiently limited so we can achieve them and goals that assist with the political and social of the country we are engaged. that means we have to look carefully every time before we

decide to intervene. for that we need to have a serious core of professionals and leaders with wisdom and humility. >> thank you. >> with regard to the reduction of fraud waste, we would reduce the cost of preparing and overseeing such operations by ensuring that there was effective planning that afforded our national authority options. more important, it would not provide more information on the ground which is what occurred in iraq and afghanistan and which do not work. that coordination must move to the integrio the there is a capacity that exists before the operation begins. it is done the work ahead of time to ensure there are controls in place so that the projects and programs succeed in that fraud waste and abuse is

reduced. >> i was reading about the army corps of engineers, and it was of dollars. how do you get better than the united states of america question mark it is not acceptable that we say to taxpayers that we need more money and we are borrowing $.43 on the dollar to send over here. if we do not have experts now, what are we doing? accountability is the key. there was no one in charge for the rebuilding program, and when the contracting held its hearing on afghanistan and said who is in charge, they could not provide an answer. brown was there to higher

when fema failed. there was no won there to fire operation does not go well. it is not coordinated. identified with accountability for the operation. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you again for the witnesses. andcontrast of the quality service of our men and women in uniform to compared to the conduct described in this report is really stark and very disturbing. i want to ask three separate questions. first is, what role does the pervasive corruption in a rack - - in iraq play in this effort? pagenow in the report,

104, the united states in vested over $67 million in anti- corruption efforts, and despite the support for the fight against corruption, little change between 2003 and 2012, and that iraq remains consistently one of the most corrupt countries in the world. visit,ber from my hearing from a constituent who was part of the group about the challenges. i would like to hear about whether or not that is the pervasive local corruption impacting the reconstruction efforts. second, i would like to hear about the police development program. apparently, wasted over $200 million to train iraqi police that baghdad did not need or want. how did that happen? how does a program that no one wants occur? how do you conclude that this

new agency would provide the kind of streamlining and oversight that we have a right to expect? the american people see what says and become enraged about the cities across america and are told we do not have the resources to build our own country when we see the colossal waste in iraq. it is probably a source of great rage from the american people. those three issues, please. >> the corruption issue in a limitsontinues- in iraq of country to grow and hold it back from making progress into a situation in which it is currently mired. as the head of the board, the chief oversight entity, told me last year, corruption has become an institution. it takes the form of money laundering. lost annuallyion

to money laundering in iraq by some estimates. that drains the economy of its resources and keeps the majority -f the population in poverty stricken circumstances. the police development for graham fails to succeed because of the lack of consultation for the minister of interior. when we did the audit am a we said to a person and he us it was formatted in a way that did not meet his needs. it was far down the road at that point, and upon the issuance of began to roll back and eventually was concluded earlier this year. . three leslie, this late in the program, there was still a consultation. co would address the fraud

and abuse issues, the planning issues by ensuring accountability and transparency. oh still poorly it would promote integration. accept that and you accept the fact that our current system is not promoting or capacity, reform is necessary. there is no other proposal on the table, no other office in place within the executive branch that is advancing that interest. that is tied to our national security architecture protecting our interest in the region, not iraq, whichm will leave us worse off. >> your report references and audit done in 2012 that concluded a billion dollars was transferred out of iraq each

week and up to $800 million was laundered money transferred illegally under false pretenses and that cumulatively over a year as presents the possibility up to $40 billion was leaving the country because of corruption. do you have a sense of what percentage of that is american taxpayer money? money, is all iraq flowing from the development fund, not u.s. money, and that comes from an audit, the supreme audit, that was relayed to me. >> thank you. isher wonderful iraq vet recognized. >> thank you. one of the things i appreciate is this is a dialogue, one of the things that needs to happen, and coming to the table and thinking about the correlation between world war ii, and there

is no correlation because there was different aspects of it. going into iraq as he did, when you're trying to rebuild place -- and not taking into account local interest in this. the question i have comes from and it was one of the core professionals you keep mentioning, usoco, it was interesting that the breakdown of 75, 15, and 10. past knowledge, state department involvement would be higher in these internal -- is that something you see? the state department role in this issue, if we are there, does it seem like to me that it leads to be higher? >> yes, it does, and given the

fact that the state department was given policy authority over the entire reconstruction program. you had the authority in one agency, at the contracting capacity all in another agency, and as i sell repeatedly on the ground, that led to failure. >> it is disturbing that we are throwing this around as quickly as we are. there has been clear evidence of a lot of things going on in serious. -- in syria. we have got a concern here, because the things you're talking about, and we look at serial, egypt, is us being involved in a way materially at is functionally different in those and fern mentz man in iraq and -- environments. how do we -- what is your estimated cost of usoco? >> $25 million a year.

>> is it a standalone new agency? >> and reports to the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and the national security advisor. >> that is an issue right there, three offices. >> it makes sense. aese are unique operations, creature of the modern era. >> but directed upon by the president, correct? >> that is right. with senate confirmation. >> we would fire that person, the president could fire that person. as we look forward, one of the last things you stated was lannned in advance -- was p in advance and have backup plans ready to go. i do not want to go back to all thet in wwii,

history you would read, the first couple of years, we were focused on winning the war, and --n the translation transition. what i found troubling in iraqi all of a sudden we are there, what we knew, and how we do we did this and they were sending it to reconstruct. we will not discuss the reasons why, but that is a concern. beingu looking at usoco an agency to say let's use an example of wherever we may go state, where military involvement needs to be there, would you try to repeat the iraq wheref a rack -- you go in before the fighting is over, or let's finish it, let's secure it, and then begin the rebuilding process? >> it would be the latter. make sure thatto

sufficient security exists before. usocoltimate goal of uso is provide options with regard to the nature of the age you might provide to country x. so you are not limited by circumstances. beiraq, we were going to gone by september, but within six weeks of arriving in the country, the shifted to occupy and rebuild with no system in place to sustain such an operation. >> i appreciate your work. i think the concern i have looking forward is implementation of this in what we will call a different and fire and went -- environment and how that will fit in long- term. tose are things we need

discuss as we go forward because that will be the hotspot. weconcerns me deeply that are discussing and we throw numbers around here, discussing taxpayer dollars. these are dollars that men and women do not understand that we sent overseas and we do not have and we, defined role, have a disconnect of what foreign aid should be and what should be about, and that has contributed to distrust americans feel and we have to restore that trust. this report helps, but we need to continue to follow up. >> we have been joined by the ranking member of the full committee. we are so thrilled to have you. how are we doing so far? doing all right? the lady from florida is recognized. >> thank you to our members who have served. i have another family confession, which is my son also

served in usa usaid. expert,s not make me an either in the military or the state department. i have tried to have many discussions with my son about this. wine bar, so you can see he has changed his direction. --e is what i want to say our i read this memo from chair lady, thank you for this memo, one thing that jumps out at me is that sigar estimates manages 75% of reconstruction funds. that should be a red alert that dod should not be managing reconstruction. in fact, i am very proud of the

military. you mentioned how they are professional, they are trained, but i question whether or not training is in redevelopment. i know my son trained to be an artillery officer, which he was, and i think it is a different job than the training to do redevelopment. i think that is one of the mistakes, having the defense department manage the construction -- reconstruction. number two, you talked about and maybe what i would disrespectfully -- i would respectfully suggest is instead of a new bureaucracy, which is think one of the failings of government is that every time an agency does not

seem to be doing well, instead of looking to see what the real problem is, you decide to create a new problem. to respectfully stir just, and i would like to hear your comments, maybe usaid is not funded, maybe usaid does not have the authority it needs, was in chargesaid of reconstruction, maybe we would have a different outcome. with that said, i am not sure fully fundedsaid or professionalized to the degree we would like it to be that our reconstruction efforts were worthwhile either in iraqi or afghanistan, but we could save that for another day. >> thank you. valid question,

whether a new bureaucracy is required. my opinion is usaid existed 40 years ago, it was engaged in vietnam. have been able to do reconstruction in iraq or afghanistan better than ourselves. conceivably you could re-create substantial resources. you would have to hire more professionals. you would have to institute a drastic cultural change. the assistant community in the united states and the world believes in assistance for sake as opposed to drug support of national interests. most of them believe that. that is not the type of culture that we are dealing with

directly. saidense is given how u functions today you would probably be faster, or efficient usingating a usoco than usaid. with ambassador herbst. the reality of usaid today functions through contracting .utage work, 80% to absorb it within one agency i think has already been attempted through ambassador herbst's office, placing it within any aid,gency, state, dod, will imbue the operation with that particular bureaucracy, and youiding it independence,

are able to develop a new culture that ensures your key point that a civilian leading the reconstruction mission. i totally concur with it. art of the motivation behind the creation of -- part of the motivation behind the creation rather than each supplemental and the bidding war as has occurred so offer and the course of the iraq rebuilding venture. thank you. colleague anda thank you for your service in iraq. >> thank you. i appreciate the report. the report talked about that initial decision to fire the security forces. general petraeus was critical of that.

folks just assumed those would not have wanted to participate in a new government, war was there evidence that led athification?de-ba >> it was influenced by the iraqi leadership in charge that was pushing the removal of nnis at a level deeper than before the war, and that led to essentially as has been described by a number of interviewees to a firing of the government. and the capacity was difficult to fill in and took years of training. and governance assistance. >> i appreciate that. the report talked about the rule of law, and i remember when i was there, there was a court built him a and we would send detainees there, what was there

any success in the time and resources that we put into the rule of law that when we are there? you said it deteriorated recently, but i know it was going on in 2007 and 2008. was that just a failure? >> the interview with the chief justice was also the chair of council,ay judicial indicated he was satisfied with support on a number of projects, particularly the task force and the judicial security support. 44 judges were killed in iraq over the last 10 years, and there was much intimidation by terroristic elements, which prevented the effective rule of law. over time as security improved came an overall improvement to the rule of law system. >> in terms of the corruption, i

think and some of the ms. manager of funds, -- mismanagement of funds, there was an example of wasted taxpayer money, but is it the case that sometimes this correction is embedded into the culture, that is, are there not limits to what a well- administrative stabilization effort is in routing after a fashion, and with respect to rack, who you think that is part of what we found when we got there? culture ofs a corruption, and to some extent, it affects the region. saddam certainly managed a formalized corrupt system of patronage. but our efforts to alter that did not alter the culture, as our reporting demonstrates, and as iraqis have told me. an culture is almost

institutionalized element within the system, and tens of billions are being lost to money laundering. it is their duty, their system, their sovereignty to address it, and they are beginning to address it, but too much has been lost over the last 10 years. >> finally, in terms of the beingproject, that was done when i was there, and it seems to me there were benefits, but this is me on a low level seeing some of this. i did not get a chance to read the report or appraise that, but do you think that was an effective use of dollars even the circumstances that these commanders were facing at the time? >> our special report demonstrated significant reporting from battalion successfulabout projects. when they were managed at a limited level, under $100,000. that was the initial plan, that

$25,000,uld be $50,000, and tens of thousands of projects on that level were accomplished. us helping local businesses, small projects. $1 million, $5e million, $10 million projects and they extended beyond the life of deployed laments then we lost -- deployed elements, then we lost control and waste and fraud occurred. >> you mentioned about us not being prepared to do these operations, and you would not advise us to get involved in a nation-building type enterprise in vast region right now -- in that region right now? >> i think we should be very careful before we make any decisions to go in at the present time. >> thank you. i appreciate the witnesses. >> thank you.

now we will have mr. farkas of california. -- mr. vargas of california. >> thank you very much. i have figured out the button. appreciate the testimony you have given today and the information you provided. think ofamericans, you the marshall plan. i certainly do. i think of it as a success. one thing you bring out in the report is the second point for your seven final lessons learned, and that was you begin rebuilding only after stylish and sufficient security and focus smoke programs and projects. , it didhall plan began not begin right after the war ended. the marshall plan did not begin until two years after the war ended and it was because we had

that fear of this bread of soviet communism. of soviet the spread communism. i looked at the numbers, because i recall the numbers being gigantic, and we spent $13 billion when we had a gdp of 200 $58 billion. it was a rather large amount of money. it was controversy with it, but at the same time people understood and the american people got behind it and said those are our allies, they are enemies, but they will be allies the term. i appreciate timing. the second part is important, that europe was going to be friendly. eight this does not seem to be the case with iraqi -- this does not seem to be the case with iraqi and afghanistan. it has the american people at some unease because every dollar

we give to israel, we say it is fantastic and they are going to be friends, but every dollar you spent on iraqi or afghanistan it does not feel right. >> two points. on the marshall plan, you're right. we spent two years planning for it. that was the element of planning to a successful rebuilding program and it is proven to the success of the marshall plan. also curious, the marshall plan's operational entity cabinet to two secretaries, so there is precedent for that. with regard to receptivity of the local populace him and there is a lesson from iraq on that, there were two rebuilding programs in effect in iraq. the one in curtis dan, the northern three provinces -- the

kurdistan, the northern three provinces and were successful. that is reductive of your core report that insuring local stability, local consultation, local engagement are key to a successful program and projects. >> how about you, ambassador? >> there is no question that our intervention in germany and japan was successful even before the marshall plan. that is because as we have all mentioned, the japanese and germans accepted our presence as legitimate in the wake of their defeat. in iraq, that was never accepted and theyong the kurds, look to us as natural friends. repressed under

saddam, but they did not see us as friends. our intervention in iraq was going to be much more difficult in the post-military phase because we were not accepted. >> that is the uneasy mecca people feel. there is a real unease that we have as americans the we are spending so much money there that in a few years, when we leave, they are not going to be our friends. they are going to see the world differently than we do, and our allies in the region are going to be their enemies. they are not going to line up on the same side. wethat is the reason why need to be cautious as we decide to engage these countries. >> any other comment? usoco would insure caution because it would offer options.

usoco would provide accountability and transparency that i think would assuage those just concerns the american people have about their dollars being wasted in these operations. >> thank you. thank ourou, and we excellent witnesses for wonderful testimony and to conclude our subcommittee, i will read into the record the seven final lessons from iraqi based on the final report from the inspector general. number one, create an integrated military office to plan and be accountable for contingency rebuilding activities during some stabilization operations. afterin rebuilding establishing sufficient security and focus on small programs and projects. three, inshore full host country

engagement in project selection, securing commitments to share costs, possibly through loans, and agreements to sustain completed projects after the their transfer, established thatrm contracting systems all participants use, five, oequire robust oversight of sr o activities, six, preserve and refine programs developed in iraq like the provincial team reconstruction program that produced success when used judicially, and plan in advance, plan comprehensive lee, in an integrated fashion, and have backup plans ready to go. excellent, gentlemen. we appreciate your testimony. we look forward to working with you in the months ahead. with that, the subcommittee is adjourned.

>> thank you, madam chairman. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

quest, if you missed any of this hearing, you can see it on our website. the texas legislature is meeting today in a special session to consider a bill to limit abortions. the measure was blocked at the end of the regular legislative session after a filibuster. the governor brought legislators back to consider the measure. also joe biden will be in arizona this after meeting at tending the memorial service for firefighters killed on june 30 in arizona. they were members of the prescott fire department's hotshot unit. saturdays in july, reported

-- recorded phone conversations of president nixon. talking with key white house advisers about the presidential mcgovern,st george and watergate. the nixon tapes, saturdays at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio. streaming at cspanradio.org. >> the house returns at noon eastern. live coverage. until then, a conversation on immigration legislation and the house agenda.

guest: it is a strange visitation. they had 20 million signatures morsiple saying that should step aside. people doeslions of oblique -- demonstrating every day. one might say it was eight coup. on the other hand, the bystitution was adopted strong-arm tactics. i would just we should not stop military aid. now,ave two sides there neither of which is acting responsibly. under morsi,od

having won at election, was trying to eliminate democratic for seizures that they would not have another fair election in the future. a definition of democracy is not one man one vote, one time. it is not that clear that we have that much leverage. we can do what we can to sit down and for some form of coalition government until elections can be held quickly, under some sort of democratic constitution. what are the prospects for immigration reform in the house? guest: we will have a better

idea after tomorrow. the way forward, the way forward what mostate passed people in immigration reform consider a reasonable bill. it is an overly harsh bill, my personal judgment. -- iepublicans are passing sit on the judiciary committee, four harsh bills. you could pass them on the floor, and there are another two, pass them on the floor, , and thenthe senate see if you can come to something that the people can support when it comes back to the conference committee. that is the way forward. the speaker has said he will not permit any bill to pass -- to go to the house floor that does not

have a majority of the conference. this includes a conference report after the conference committee. if the merger rd of the republican conference will not support a pathway to legalization, not necessarily a way to citizenship, there will not be a bill. the bottom line for democrats is there has to be some sort of ultimate pathway to citizenship. if the pathway -- the bottom line for republicans have to be border sick role -- border control, that can be accommodated. host: officials have more authority to enforce their laws. guest: they have more authority to enforce the federal laws. host: the skills act, more visas

for high-tech grads. guest: that is an example of something that you could have an agreement and it is engineered to have an agreement. everybody agrees there should be more visas for- high -- skilled workers. the problem was that for the 50,000 extra diseases for stem , they took 50,000 visas away from the adversity and other family reunification. that is not acceptable. host: are you ok with this effort they are doing, or du think it is -- or do you think it should be more comprehensive? guest: it should be more

comprehensive. if they want to do a piecemeal bill so a given republican can ok, but this, that is eventually it is going to have to be a comprehensive bill when it comes back from conference. if they think they can pass bills, they are going to crack down and appropriate billions on , have ancurity, obnoxious guestworker program, and not do things that democrats want, it will not fly. doing it piece by piece in a way to avoid that question is the answer. host: the chairman of the committee says there is a lot of concern, not just in the house, but across the country about massive pieces of legislation. comprehensively, you have 1200 pages a month a lot of revisions, and people do

not know what is in the bill, and the american public does not like that. guest: that does not make sense. list of the things we have done, social security, medicare, are large bills when they were passed. i do not know how many hundreds of pages, but they were hundreds of pages. in a complex society like this, it becomes inevitable. so that people know what it is in it, you have to spend some time with it. do not pass it in the dead of night.

have the bill out four weeks before you vote on it. you can do those things. we can know when you pass legislation there will have to be cleaned up. he will find that this provision does not work or that the drafting of the provision was not exactly what you wanted it to be. there is always clean up legislation. the problem we have now with a bomb scare is republicans will not allow any cleanup legislation because they want to sabotage and implementation of the bill. normally you do a comprehensive bill into reasonable cleanup legislation after that. host: the chairman goes on to say -- that it could fail and kill prospects for any prospective legislation in this congress. guest: i do not know that that is fair. the senate is really not pressing the house to take up their bill. the senate is pressing the house to make sure the major provisions of the bill are dealt with.

the fact is as long as the house gets to conference, and everything coming out of both houses has to be discussed, that will be sufficient. what the senate is really saying if you want the provisions you want, the stronger border inforcement, and so forth, that can be negotiated. it has to have a path to citizenship. host: a congressman of the so- called gang of eight working on a bipartisan comprehensive approach was on "meet the press" [video clip] >> my concern with the senate bill is they put the legalization of 11 minute -- 11 million people ahead of security. the legalization happen first and security have been second. i think the american people will not stand for that. if you look at the debacle they have right now, this administration is deciding when

and where to enforce the law. that is what some of us in the house are concerned about. if you give this administration the authority to decide when they will enforce the law, how they will enforce it, and you tell them it is ok if they decide if there will be 20,000 troops or 20,000 border patrol agents or they get to determine when the border is secure, i can tell you janet napolitano has already said the border is secure. guest: there are a number of points that are not the case. you can allow an administration a lot of leeway or very little leeway. number two, the senate bill in the basic approach is having a pathway to citizenship.

the senate bill a minimum of 13 years. he says the legalization starts right away, by which he means that very shortly people can come out of hiding. this enables them to work, to be legal in the united states while they are on the 13-year plus pathway for citizenship. right now the department of homeland security has the net --legal immigration of the live now to the house. attention and be wholehearted in all the tasks you set before us this day. we ask your blessing upon our

muslim brothers and sisters as they begin observation of the holy month of ramadan. may their dedication to you as you have revealed yourself to them and their commitment to row in relationship to you redowned to the benefit. bless the members as they continue the work of this assembly, guide them to grow in understanding in giving solutions to our nation's need that are enviewed with truth and justice. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise?

mr. wilson: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the agree is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. mr. wilson: mr. speaker. the speaker: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. wilson: i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman guthrie. cky, mr. mr. guthrie: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the obama administration last week announced that it will delay until 2015 the employer health mandate, a crucial provision of its signature health care law. mr. lance: this is of questionable legality. days after that announced delay, the white house said that it would roll back requirements for new state online insurance marketplaces to verify the income and health coverage status of people who apply for subsidized coverage. and this week it was reported that the obama administration has quietly notified insurers that a computer system glitz will limit penalties that the law says companies will charge smokers. this underscores that obamacare is not affordable, unworkable

and not what the american eople were promised. it's time that president obama work with house republicans to repeal the affordable care act and replace it with effective, commonsense reforms that actually lower health care costs for working families and small businesses while protecting jobs and our economy. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized is. mr. langevin: -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: i rise today because everyone deserves access to affordable education. unfortunately, high costs keep students from realizing this dream. last monday the interest rates on subsidized student loans doubled to 6.8%. we have the ability to fix this, and the time to act is now. this week we'll vote to lower it to 3.4% for another year.

this bill is a commonsense solution to another self-imposed crisis. now, i realize, as does my colleague from rhode island, mr. cicilline, we realize over 40,000 rhode island students receive subsidized stafford loans and will seen be making financial decisions for the upcoming school year. now, if education is the true great equalizer, if it will help grow our economy, then how can we justify making it less accessible for the most advantaged? dis we must help access to higher education. i ask that the house pick this had up without delay. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, spending the past week meeting constituents across my district, i come to

the floor to remind my colleagues that the american people are incensed over the unwarranted targeting and mistreatment by the i.r.s. mr. walberg: without the administration's help, the house has done its due diligence to get to the bottom of this issue. but it seems as though a new scandal comes to light every day. most recently we learned about the purchase of wine, romance novels and even materials on the i.r.s. credit cards. hlavac conferences, singling out of adoptive families and, of course, the systematic targeting of conservative and religious groups, it is apparent that the i.r.s. is an agency out of control. mr. speaker, the fourth of july causes our entire nation to pause and reflect on the vision of liberty our founders valid when they declared our independence. liberty is jeopardized when federal agencies abuse the trust granted by the people. it must end, and the

administration and the i.r.s. must show congress and the american people that it will never happen again. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, washington's failure to replace sequestration is imposing real al is is on -- fall is is on families across our country. more than 3,000 civil department of defense at the u.s. naval war college were furloughed. imposing the equivalent of a 20% pay cut through the end of the fiscal year. and it doesn't stop there. sequestration is expected to cost the american economy 750,000 jobs alone, this year alone, according to the congressional budget office. americans have had enough of gridlock between democrats and republicans in washington. it's time for congress to start getting things done for working families, and that's why i'm calling on the house republican leadership to immediately bring

h.r. 2060 to the house floor for an up or down vote so we can replace sequestration with smart, targeted spending cuts and new sources of revenue by eliminating subsidies for big oil companies and closing tax loopholes for corporations that ship american jobs overseas. commonsense solutions that all of us in this chamber should agree on. i thank you, mr. speaker, and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, according to a recent editorial in "the washington times," quote, the promise of obamacare that would make health insurance more universal and affordable, it was obvious in the beginning that president obama's scheme, a fantasy of politics would not work. the folly of the health care takeover becomes ever more clear with the appearance of the implementation. robust economic growth is crucial, and obamacare threatens to make a bad economy

much worse. congress must listen to the whistle of that speeding train bearing down on us and step on the brakes and afford the wreck that's still time to come. the wheeling and dealing of the dishonest obamacare campaign has finally caught up with the president. delaying the employer mandate while requiring individuals to comply with the government takeover bill is wrong and will place a burden on american families. we must repeal obamacare in its entirety, replace it with a plan to preserve the doctor-patient relationship before this unworkable law destroys more jobs. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. hahn: i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. hahn: mr. speaker, as the representative of our nation's busiest port complex and the co-founder and co-chair of the ports caucus, i understand the

unique security challenges that ports pose to our economic and national security. ports are a crucial piece of our economy and a potential attack or disruption to trade operations could have a disastrous impact on the american economy. last week the brookings institute released a study highlighting troubling cybersecurity weaknesses at our nation's ports, and all too often overlooked area of infrastructure vulnerability. we need to do better and finally take a comprehensive examination of the security of our nation's ports facility and develop a plan to address any gap or vulnerabilities. this is why i urge my colleagues to support the gaps act, my legislation that directs the department of homeland security to conduct a comprehensive classified study of potential gaps in port security and prepare a plan to address them. after all, think tanks aren't the only ones looking for security weaknesses at our

ports. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute? mr. guthrie: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. guthrie: the administration delayed the employer mandate for one year. while this allows them more time, it is not the repeal that we need. the house majority leadership sent a letter to president obama today asking him to explain why he profitted the delay in the employer -- prompted the delay in the employer mandate. families like yours and mine are left wondering what led to this decision and why the individual mandates, which will be squst as costly, remains in place. i join my colleagues in requesting this vital information. the requirements of the health care law have always left more questions than answers. i continue to hear from kentuckyians who wonder if they'll lose their coverage, be

forced to choose different providers or be saddled with the different new costs. obamacare continues to be the train wreck that destroys jobs, and we have to stop it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? mrs. capps: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to call attention to legislation i'm reintroducing, the school-based health centers act. my bill is simple and straightforward. it re-authorizes the only source of federal support of ated to the operations school-based health centers. these centers provide vital preventive and primary health services to over two million students nationwide. they are often the only source of health care for children and adolescents, and they are easily accessible, keeping students healthy, in school and learning. yet, the current economic climate many in this climate

nearly of these 2,000 centers are at risk of cutting services, jobs or even closing. and that's why i've reintroduced legislation to ensure that these important health centers not only remain open but can expand to serve even more students. students deserve reliable access to quality, comprehensive health care services and at school-based health centers, they can find one of the best ways to do just that. i strongly urge my colleagues co-sponsoring the school-based health centers bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. earlier today the financial services subcommittee on financial institutions and consumer credit held a hearing on the consumer financial protection bureau's widespread collection and use of data. at this time washington is flooded with scandals over has surveillance and political targeting. over the past few months, americans have seen and

continue to see the potential for personal information to be misused and compromised. now, another government that has touted itself as being transparent, collect and store information on potentially millions of u.s. citizens. even more troubling that in today's hearing, the acting deputy director couldn't even give a broad estimate of the number of americans having their data monitored. know ns have a right to if their federal governmentes that gone too far. we need to allow for better transparency and safeguard the privacy and constitutional rights of american citizens. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, we celebrate one of america's best ideas, our national park system. mr. costa: and what it means

for millions of our families each year to be able to enjoy the park system throughout our country. as we mark national parks and recreation month, we remember that the parks in america belong to all of us. we have some wonderful parks in california. yosemite national park is my back yard and it brings millions of americans to california who stand in awe of half dome and yosemite falls, the grove and mariposa red woods. i've introduced legislation before this house that would protect yosemite's vulnerable western boundary by expanding the park to include 1,600 acres that was originally intended by john muir. this would ensure that we continue to preserve the park for future generations of americans. it was originally envisioned almost 150 years ago. it has been said that nothing is more american than our national park system.

my bill would guaraee tha we're protecting one of the crown jewels of this truly american treasure. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. 3 1/2 years and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars later, this administration still hasn't figured out how to implement their health care law. what more proof do they need? now more than ever it's clear that this law is too complicated, too expensive, and, worse, failing american families. last week the obama administration announced there no longer require businesses to offer health insurance to workers next year. nor require states to verify residents' income before signing them up for insurance. while these actions provide much-needed relief to our job

creators who have been forced to shrink paychecks and freeze hiring, it still requires individuals and families to obtain insurance. it also opens the door to more waste, fraud and abuse of precious taxpayer dollars. american families want, need and deserve patient-centered care, not the government -knows-best health care system. it's time to repeal and shred this broken law into ribbons. let's start over with real, commonsense reform both it's too late. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to congratulate a constituent of mine. she created the winning recipe in the white house secretary annual healthy lunch time challenge and won an invitation to today's kid state dinner hosted by the first lady. yesterday i had the honor of meeting caitlin and her family

and what an impressive young woman. at age 9 she created not only a healthy recipe that would make any chef proud, she did it while making it healthy with 100 calories or less in the dish. mr. walz: he has been helping her mother hand-pick vegetables and cook seasonal dishes. her recipe was a garden stir fry containing vegetables. there's no doubt that caitlin has a bright future ahead of her in whatever she decides to do. it's an honor for me to meet caitlin and her family and congratulate her on this high honor and her contribution to making america a healthier nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for one minute. ms. wilson: mr. speaker, it's now been 919 days since i

aarrived in congress. -- arrived in congress. 919 days. and the republican leadership has still not allowed a single vote on serious legislation to address our unemployment crisis. after learning of friday's lackluster job numbers, many pundits and politicians actually cheered. it could have been worse, they said. they also said, things are returning to normal. try telling that to any of the 11.8 million americans who are still out of work. or to the millions more who are underemployed or have given up looking for work. according to friday's jobs numbers, the average level of unemployment is now at 35 -- length of unemployment is now at 35 weeks. before the great recession, the average was just 16 weeks. mr. speaker, it's no wonder people are losing hope. it's our obligation to restore that hope. as we begin this july session,

let's commit to passing a comprehensive bill to restore unemployment for young people, recent grads and the long unemployed. mr. speaker, our mantra should be jobs, jobs, jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman from nevada is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: thank you. when the majority leader announced a list of bills that the house may consider over the next few weeks, i was disappointed to hear that in july, instead of focusing on significant challenges that face our nation, house republicans will begin the next chapter in their war on women. we may consider, we heard, appropriations bills and another farm bill that would have drastic cuts to vital programs like snap and w.i.c.

that disproportionately devastate low-income women and families. we may yet again vote on legislation to repeal or gut the affordable care act which has provided millions of women with access to preventtive care and ensured finally that being a woman is not a pre-existing condition. what's equally troubling is what we didn't hear, what's missing from the list. where is a budget to replace the sequester which is prohibiting access to life-saving programs for victims of domestic violence? where is legislation to create jobs, put americans back to work and strengthen economic opportunities for the middle class? and where is the paycheck fairness act to finally ensure that women get equal pay for equal work? i say we need another list. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to express my condolences to all

those affected by the crash of asiana airlines flight 214 on saturday morning at san francisco international airport in my district. my thoughts and prayers are with the families of the two victims of the crash, on their way to a summer camp in southern california. my thoughts and prayers are with all those who were seriously injured and face months or years of recovery. the miracle of flight 214 is that 305 passengers and crew survived this horrific tragedy. ms. speier: that is due in no small part to the many heroes of that day. crew, fellow passengers, valiant first responders, s.f.o. staff, all -- everyone who evacuated the plane, even when fire was burning in the fuselage. the crew members who carried a young passenger off the plane on their back because he was too frightened to escape, the firefighters and san francisco police officer who was wear nothing protective gear, who entered the plane and helped four passengers escape, including one who was trapped. it was nothing short of who are owic and remarkable -- of heroic and remarkable. this crash is a remind that are

we need never stop to focus on safety. thankfully the national transportation safety board, under the leadership of chairman deborah hersman, is there to fully investigate and determine what happened. mr. speaker, this was a horrible tragedy but we have much to be thankful for. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california -- colorado seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to call upon this body to pass comprehensive immigration reform. moments ago i was at a mock graduation of hundreds of dreamers. these are young de facto americans, americans who are as american as you or i, grew up, played on a sports team, were cheerleaders, in some cases valedictorians in their high schools, and yet lacked the paperwork to prove they are americans. they are as american in their hearts as any of us. and have so much to give to the great country in which they grew up. and yet they are represented

from doing so bied failure of this body to -- by the failure of thised abouty to act. -- of this body to act. they need the paperwork they need to get a job or get a driver's license. but there's no certainty there. what becomes of them in two years? in four years? how do they know that the time they spend investing and earning a college degree will be able to pay off with a good job down the road? it's time for this body to take up action on the senate bill or pass a comprehensive house bill. we have a unique window of opportunity to do something very important for our economy, creating jobs for americans, important for our national security and important for our future of our country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the

rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on july 9, 2013, at 10: 50 a.m. that the senate passed senate 793, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 288 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 39, house resolution 288, resolved that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 2609, making appropriations for the energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes.

the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21 are waived. during consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair of the committee of the whole may accord priority and recognition on the basis of whether the member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule 18. amendments so printed shall be considered as read. when the committee rises and reports the bill back to the house with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the to and amendments thereto

final passage. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. burgess: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. burgess: house resolution 288 provides for an open rule for consideration of h.r. 2609, making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for fiscal year 2014. this rule contains the tradition reinstated by the republican majority in the last congress, that appropriations bills should come to the floor in a manner that allows every

member of the house, both republican and democrat, to amend those bills and to have their voices heard. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this rule. the underlying bill, making appropriations for the department of energy and the united states corps of engineers, the bill provides for $30.4 billion for these agencies which is $2.9 billion below fiscal year 2013 enacted and $4.1 billion below the president's request. at a time of fiscal constraint, when government, like our constituents, must make tough choices on where to spend -- smartly spend the money the american taxpayers have trusted us to oversee. the bill provides critical funding for our energy needs, making $450 million available for advanced coal, natural gas, oil and fossil fuel technologies. moreover, the bill provides $5.5 billion for environmental cleanup activities, funds to safely clean sites contaminated by nuclear weapons production.

the underlying bill before us has been carefully crafted by the appropriations committee under the leadership of chairman rogers, ranking member lowey, subkir are committee chairman freelien hughesen and ranking member -- frellen hughesing -- frelinghuysen and ranking member capture. this prioritizes funds to advance our goal of an all-of-the-above solution to energy independence. further, the house continues its commitment to achieve a long-term storage facility for nuclear waste, providing support activities in support of the opening of yucca mountain, a solution long overdue. the house energy and water bill furthers this majority's commitment to spending taxpayer money wisely, cutting waste and inefficiencies wherever they may be. once again, mr. speaker, i rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the underlying bill, h.r. 2609, the fiscal year 2014 energy and water appropriations act. having this bill on the floor this week is another example of how we as a body, our congress, has its priorities wrong. it's why congress has an approval rating of 12%. rather than fixing our broken immigration system and replacing it with one that works for our country, rather than doing something about the fact that student loan rates just doubled for its students that are incurring new loans, here we are sacrificing our renewable energy future while simultaneously increasing spending for new and unneeded nuclear weapons, far above even the sequestration level of

funding. it's no wonder that this institution has a disapproval rating that it does. this legislation is fundamentally flawed. it underfunds programs that not only grow our nation's clean energy sources, but also create jobs, promote emerging technologies and maintain critical infrastructure. and yet while making these cuts, it increases weapon activities by 97.-- $97.7 million above the 2013 levels. here we have a bill that prioritizes unnecessary weapons and defense programs at the expense of our nation's innovation and international competitiveness. the underlying bill slashes funding for value -- for a valuable program called the advance research project agency. it cuts funding for this critical program which yesterday in our rules committee, both the ranking member and the subcommittee chair aagreed that they were fans of, by $215 million below last year's funding level.

r.p.e. was modeled after darpa, the defense -- department of defense's advanced research project agency which has led to so many great innovative technologies that improve our security as a country. and in the few short years of existence, r.p.e. has funded 285 projects in 33 states. probablies that promise to transform the energy future for our country. project selection process show that our taxpayer dollars are being used wisely. and the program is paid off. since 2009, 17 arpa-e programs have leveraged the small initial investment, which is typically $500,000, $1 million, $2 million, 17 programs have leveraged that into $17 million of program and additional investments of $450 million. i was a founder of several startup companies before i came to congress and i understand the value of risk taking and the role the government has in

promoting technology. i represent a district with two research universities that receive a combined federal research investment of about $700 million. many of these basic technologies, which we as a country invest in, lead to the jobs and the companies and the consumer technologies of the future and what could be more critical than putting our nation on a path to sustainible energy development? just this last february i met team in rpa he project -- arpa-e project team. this university of colorado project team had demonstrated energy improvements for solar photo-voltaic potential. this is many that will help boost our economic well-being of our country and will lead to our energy independence and national security far more than unneeded nuclear missiles. my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know this program is essential to protecting our energy future and that's why

lotted by m has been republicans and democrats alike, as it was in the meeting last night. this program cuts from science and lean energy programs fossil fuels continue to wed our country, to subsidizing oil and gas, to subsidizing nuclear weapons while making cuts in our energy future. by maintaining these fossil fuel subsidies while cutting clean energy research, we're prioritizing fossil fuels over innovative technologies that actually holds the key to our clean, sustainible energy independence. while i appreciate that this bill has some decreases to the amount of federal subsidies going to the fossil fuel accounts compared to last year, i think it's high time we end these subsidies to one of america's most profitable industries. this report language from the committee seems to be searching for a reason to spend our precious taxpayer dollars at a time of sequestration and a time of deficits, how can we

spend more on fossil fuels when we should be spending less? in addition, this bill needlessly increases the funding for weapons activities and defense programs. at a time where we're winding down our involvement in two wars that have been very costly in lives and dollars this last decade, and that's why i'm offering an amendment with representative quigley that would put the v-16 back to the agency's request level that would save taxpayer dollars and reduce the deficit. this bill actually increases funding by over $20 million for these ongoing missile programs. at an era where americans should expect the government to look at where these moneys are invested. there have been growing concern raised by the air force's own blue ribbon review panel about

the effectiveness of the b-61 and that's why the price -- the price for this program has continued to rise dramatically and confidence in the missile program has dropped. in fact, some of our nato allies like germany have called for the b-61's to be removed from their boarders. again, given our fiscal constraints, it's a time of choices. it's nice to have it all, but i think we need to ensure that taxpayer money is not wasted on programs that fail to sufficiently protect our national security. in fact rkt some of our allies -- in fact, some of our allies don't even support. another not needed, throwing more government money after more government money is for the w-76 life extension program. the current bill request $248 million, $13 million more than the administration requested, because of fear of a lack of nuclear deterrence capability if we reduce our stockpile below the levels in the start treaty. the start treaty requires us not to have more than 1,550

nuclear weapons. isn't that enough, mr. speaker? 1,500 nuclear weapons. how many times can we completely obliterate not only our enemies but the entire world with 1,500 weapons? even this lower stockpile nuclear weapons is a relic of our -- during the cold war and can be drastically reduced. unfortunately, this bill increased it. the arms control association identified over $39 billion in savings to the taxpayer if we redecembered our nuclear weapons stockpile to 1,000 nuclear weapons. ore than enough to deter any harm to the united states. we can save $39 billion by going down to 1,000 nuclear weapons. these are some of the many reasons that i oppose the underlying bill. i support -- i'm very supportive of this rule coming forward from our committee that will allow for a full and open

debate. i hope that many of these ideas that i presented as well as other ideas from members on both sides of the aisle will prevail so the end product, work product of this house is something that democrats and republicans can join together in supporting, something that no longer suffices our renewable energy future for yet more and -- suffices our -- sacrifices our renewable energy for yet more wasteful spending. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: i do feel obligated to point out, of course, the object under discussion currently is the rule that will allow us to debate the water and energy appropriation bill. the rule is an open rule. the gentleman has disagreements with the language in the underlying bill. it's an open rule. he's free to have those amendments to the floor. the will of the house will prevail. that's the way it should be.

mr. polis: if the gentleman will yield? mr. burgess: that's the way it should be under an open rule. my time is limited. let me just state that i have for the record i have amendments that i will be placing before the house. i hope they're accepted. but i will accept the underlying bill even if the absence of those amendments. i hope the gentleman from colorado will approach it in a similar spirit. i'm going to yield -- reserve the balance of my time. obviously, the gentleman has ample time to continue the discussion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i was just going to comment to the gentleman that the committee work product, the bill before us is a highly flawed bill. i certainly hope that the open process and the will of the house will significantly alter and improve upon this bill. we'll find it out in the days ahead. it's my honor, mr. speaker, to yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from california, former colleague of mine on the rules committee, ms. matsui. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. ms. matsui: thank you, mr.

speaker. i thank the gentleman from colorado for yielding me time. mr. speaker, my district of sacramento is one of the leading clean energy economies of this country. the sharp cuts to clean energy initiatives in this will are deeply troubling. it will no doubt hurt american innovation and american jobs. particularly as other nations continue to invest in clean energy technologies. it is also not reflective of an all-of-the-above energy strategy that our nation desperately needs. at the same time, this bill addresses some of the important protections of my district. sacramento is the most at-risk metropolitan area for major flooding as the lives of the sacramento rivers. we have a great deal at risk. as the home of the state capital and half a million people, a major flood event in sacramento would have economic damages of up to $40 billion. i am pleased that this bill includes nearly $70 million in funding for sacramento's flood protection priorities. including more than $66 million

o continue construction on the folsom dam project. it has report language expressing concern with the corps' current levee vegetation policy. sacramento is ground zero for e impact of the corps' vegetation policy. instead of a one-size-fits-all solution, the corps should have local input as called for under bipartisan legislation i introduced in h.r. 399, the levee vegetation review act. the bill also includes report language which i also requested expressing concern with the corps' decision to end its section 104 crediting policy, which has halted flood protection projects from moving forward, particularly in west sacramento. mr. speaker, moving forward, we must also be cognizant of the other much-needed public safety projects that remain unfunded and unbuilt due to a lack of a

wrda bill. we need to improve america's crumbling levee infrastructure. mr. speaker, in sacramento my constituents have taxed hemselves twice and $350 million in construction work is well under way for the levee improvement project all while awaiting congressional authorization for over two years after receiving a report from the army corps of engineers. mr. speaker, on may 15, the senate passed a robust wrda bill with clear bipartisan support of 83-14. it is my sincere hope that the house will soon follow suit. we cannot wait until the next disaster that will take lives and wreck our economy. this is a bipartisan issue that must be addressed immediately in congress, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds and respond to some that was said

in the initial opening by the minority. the student loan bill passed this house over a month ago. it has been sitting in the senate for the entire month of june. the problem with student loans could have been addressed by the other body. it could be addressed prior to the july 1 deadline which was a deadline after all that the democrats had set when they were in the majority. so to say that the house has not done its work is in fact not correct. the house has done its work. we await the other body to act. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: to further address the student loan issue, this body did pass a bill to prevent the increase in student loan rates that just occurred. however, that bill, very similar bill, failed in the bill. so, too, a democratic bill to provide a two-year extension of the student loan rate also failed in the senate.

so at this point the victim of all this are students in our country who are forced just going -- going back to school will be forced to borrow at twice the rate at 6.8% if congress can't get its act together. and that's why if we defeat the previous action i'll offer an amendment to the rule that will bring up the keep student loans affordable act, sponsored by representative george miller, representative ruben hinojosa, myself and several others which would undue the recent doubling of student loan interest rates. it's that simple. while we work towards a market-oriented solution along the parameters that president obama has spelled out making sure we have the protections in place like cash for students everywhere, -- caps for students everywhere, we need to make sure that students returning this fall are not borrowing at a rate twice the rate of last year. to discuss this bill i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, my colleague on the education and work force committee, mr. hinojosa.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. i hinojosa: mr. speaker, rise to urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2574, entitled the student loans affordable act of 2013, legislation that would extend and fully pay for additional year of the 3.4% interest rate on subsidized federal direct stafford loans. given that millions of students and families are struggling to afford the skyrocketing costs of a college education, it's shocking to me that this congress allowed interest rates to double on july 1. i'm afraid that this republican majority congress is making college more expensive and for millions of students with the student debt surpassing $1 trillion, another increase of

$1,000 of debt would be damaging to millions of students already struggling to afford basic expenses like rent and food. the student loan debt crisis is crushing the dreams and aspirations of students and college deprad wits. -- graduates. high levels of debt are creating obstacles for those starting a family, purchase a home and save for retirement. at this rate they cannot accomplish those standard goals that every american should be able to achieve. debt view, student loan sends our country backward, not forward. without congress' swift action, more than seven million low and moderate-income students working towards a college degree will have to pay an additional $1,000 for each loan that they borrow. the keep student loans affordable act of 2013 will secure low interest rates for an additional year as congress works on a long-term and

sustainable approach for the federal student loan program that works for both students nd taxpayers. importantly this bill will enshupe -- this will bill will lp ensure that college stays available for students. this is irresponsible and puts students in a yearly adjustable student loan which will result in great unpredictability and skyrocketing costs. bills more, the g.o.p. add more debt onto students, even more than the doubling of the interest rates. in a globally competitive economy, an education is clearly a necessity. this congress should be helping students afford a college education, not settling them with student loan debt. as ranking member of the subcommittee on higher education and work force training, i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do what is right. and pass h.r. 2574, to reverse

the student loan rate increase. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. i'll yield myself 30 seconds. again, if i recall correctly, the bill that the gentleman from texas just referenced has only democratic sponsors, it's not a bipartisan bill. the other body completely controlled by democrats in the majority has within its power to pass a bill, conference with the republican-passed bill here in the house, and work out the problem. they have failed to do so. the house has done its work. the bill has -- the house-passed bill was received in the senate on the 3rd of june. it's been there for over a month. the other body certainly has within its power to afpblgt i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: again, to responds

to that, the bill that the house passed failed in the united states senate. so too did a two-year delay in keeping the student loan rates low. that has failed in the senate. so, we can simply say, oh, we're just not going to do anything unless student -- and let student loan rates double or we can take it within ourselves in this body to try to find a new way. that's what the democrats and ranking member miller have put forward. a way to say, look, we couldn't agree on two years, we couldn't agree on a long-term solution, let's give us a one-year window where the kids coming back to school in a month aren't going to be borrowing at twice the rate that they were last year. we have the chief sponsor of the bill here to speak about it, and, mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, the ranking member of the committee on education and work force, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as we debate this rule, it has now been a little over a week since interest rates on loans for millions of the neediest college students doubled thanks to the republican obstructionism. with the doubles -- with that

doubleling -- doubling, those who can afford it least will be burdened with a mountain of debt. because congress has not acted in a responsible way, this rate increase will cost borrowers an additional $1,000 per student per loan. the doubling of the interest rates did not have to happen. rather than making it more affordable for students and families to pay for college, the house republicans decided to pass a bill that would make college more expensive. the bill was dead on arrival in the senate. it was dead on arrival in the senate because it was worse for students than the doubling of the interest rates. and it left the students without an option. other than the doubling of the interest rates. and that's why we must act today, we must defeat the previous question so that we can deliberate this and get a solution until we can work on a long-term, bipartisan agreement on this one. the republican plan that passed the house was totally irresponsible, it was simply not a smart solution. it has been advertised by my

friends on the other side as a long-term fix but we all know the truth. the republican bills add more debt onto the students, even more than doubling the interest rates. the republican bill also puts students at a yearly adjustable student loans, which result in great unpredictability and soaring loan costs to the students and their families. this is outrageous and offensive. the student loan program is a program that the government makes $50 billion off the back of the students and the republicans' response is that the students should pay higher interest rates so they can pay down the national deficit. the student loan program itself is paying down the national deficit because of the profit the federal government makes. it's time to stop that and make student loans affordable for students and for their families. this congress simply has not done right by students. forcing these students to continue to graduate with an increasing mountain of debt while at the same time they lament the students are

graduating with increased debt. that's what the republicans offered, that's why as my colleague from colorado said it was dead on arrival when it went to the senate. it was dead on a bipartisan basis when it went to the senate. the time has come now to defeat the previous question so that we can bring the one-year fix to make sure that students are protected from the doubling of the interest rates that is now occurring because of the inaction by the republicans in the house of representatives. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. again, just a bit of a history lesson. in 2007, democratically controlled house, democratically controlled senate, passed the student loan rates. they built into the law an expiration date of last july. last july, a one-year extension was passed. this year the republican house passed a responsible extension. the other body needs to do its work. when they do, we're here to talk. i now wish to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. barton.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. barton: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. barton: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the rule for the energy and water appropriations bill. is historically has been one of the first appropriation bills brought to the floor. i'd like to inform the members that, as is the practice or the -- of the republicans in the majority, it's an open rule, there are a number of amendments that will be made and it's my understanding that any individual who wishes to offer an amendment can come to the floor and do so. the bill is coming in at $30.4 billion which is $2.9 billion below fiscal 2013 enacted and $4 billion below the president's request. so, the appropriations committee is operating in compliance with the house

budget that we passed several months ago. this is a good rule, it's a good bill. i would hope that we can support the rule and obviously support the bill. and i would like to also add an editorial comment on the student loan rate issue. obviously we want those interest rates to be as low as possible but i would point out to my friends on the other side of the aisle that the house passed the bill, it's waiting to be brought up in the other body. they could bring it up tomorrow and vote it, send it to the president for his signature. apparently the great sin in the house-passed bill appears to be that it moves towards an adjustable rate interest rate as opposed to a fixed rate that is below market rates. nd we would all like to have 0% interest, obviously, but in this current environment, sometimes we have to -- you have -- i'm told you have all

kinds of time. so, i would not yield. but i appreciate you wanting to ask me to. and with that i will yield back the balance of my time to the distinguished member of the rules committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman. i just know that there have been less speakers on the other side and i was hoping that we might be able to use some of the all kinds of time in a bipartisan way. the gentleman from texas was not accurate in saying that the house bill awaits action in the senate. it had a vote in the senate, it did not pass. so too a two-year extension did not reach the cloture vote. so again here we are. we can start blaming each other, the folks on the other side of the building, or we can do something to get to work to keep student loan rates low for america's college students. president obama even proposed such. so if that's what the gentleman wants to do, let's engage in a discussion about that. in the meantime, let's pass a one-year extension so the rates

don't double which they already did two weeks ago when the kids come back to school in the fall. mr. speaker, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, a leader on this issue and a colleague of mine on the education and work force committee, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered, the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: i thank my friend for the time. a lot of american families are getting their financial aid notices for the new academic year. chagrin, their they're opening these nfls and finding out that the -- envelopes and finding out that the student loan that cost them 3.4% last year is going to cost them 6.8% starting this year. this is a huge problem. for the millions of american families who borrow money to educate their children or themselves. now, what the congress has produced on this thus far is blame and finger pointing. so here's what happened. the republican majority passed a bill on this floor that actually made the problem

worse. it actually would cost more than just going up to the 6.8% by about $4,000 per student other a -- over a five-year period. they poured car seen on the fire. sent that bill over to the senate. the senate rejected the bill and didn't pass anything else. now, i regret all of that but, ladies and gentlemen, we have two choices in front of us today. we can quit on the issue and quit on america's students, or we can try to do something about it. i think we should try to do something about it. here's the something. mr. miller has a proposal that would keep the rates at 3.4% for one more year. it would pay for this and not add a dime to the deficit by closing a tax loophole that exists for fairly wealthy people. our proposal is we should put that bill on the floor and take a vote on it. i hope that a majority of members would vote yes to help

american students in this way. but we're not even requiring that. we're simply saying that what we should do this afternoon on this floor is put that proposal up for a vote. a couple -- in a couple of minutes we're going to take a vote on whether to take a vote on that question. now, as is often the case around here, the resumes are a little backward -- rules are a little backward. those who vote no on the next vote are voting in favor of bringing this up so the congress can work its will. those who vote yes are saying we should not do that. the choice is clear. we either take a vote and try to fix this problem or we quit on america's students and america's families. let's do our job and take a vote on this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back his time. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, may i inquire to whether or not you have additional speakers on the other identify? mr. polis: we're not aware of any at this time. there might be one more coming

but if they're not here i'm prepared to close. mr. burgess: i have the right to close, is that correct? the speaker pro tempore: that's correct. mr. burgess: i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: again, we wonder why this body has an approval rating of 12%. instead of tackling issues that americans want us to tackle, like finally fixing our broken immigration system, which by the way a bill received more than 2/3 support in the senate, democrats and republicans, it's hard to get 2/3 of anybody to agree on anything, and yet 70% of americans support comprehensive immigration reform, 2/3 of the united states senate. let's bring that bill up and pass it. student loans, sure, we can cast blame on the senate. we can cast blame on whoever we feel like. but the fact is american families are borrowing at 6.8% this fall. .4% now,

student loans. so we can either just say, ok, it's not our fault, we passed something, let's go home, or we can actually try to reach a solution. if we can defeat the previous question today we can bring representative miller's bill right to the floor to allow a one-year window for congress to work this out and keep loan -- student loan rates at 3.4% and prevent our next generation of college kids from having their backs broken under the weight of high-interest student loans. mr. speaker, with regard to this bill, again, not the bill that america wants us to be discussing, instead a bill that cuts our renewable energy future, puts even more money into nuclear weapons, i can't support this committee report on the energy and water spending bill. i hope that through this process the will of the house changes this bill dramatically, dramatically. if not, then we're simply making the wrong decisions for our energy future. the bill slashes critical funding that would create jobs, grow our economy, lead to energy security, increase our

competitiveness. at the same time the bill adds spending to increase our nuclear weapon stockpiles. how can we expect to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists if we cut the nuclear nonproliferation activities by $600 million? under this bill. while the bill increases funding for our wents programs, and continues funding for fossil fuel subsidies, it guts many of our renewable energy programs. like r.p.e., the department of energy office of science, and investing in the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy. this bill threatens to increase our reliance on foreign oil, reduce job growth, increase pollution and damage american distribute health of american families. if we don't act to reverse this legislation he deep cuts to science programs and energy research, the united states will have many, many missiles armed with nuclear warheads, but we'll fall